Alexandria Archbishop Focuses on Nicene Creed; Avoids Disputational Doctrinal Bullets in Unity Talks

COMMENTARY

By David W. Virtue, DD

www.virtueonline.org

Nov. 5, 2025

The Most Rev. Dr. Samy Fawzy Shehata (Archbishop of the Episcopal/Anglican Province of Alexandria and Diocesan Bishop of Egypt) recently addressed the Sixth World Conference on Faith and Order, in which he called for ongoing work to “serve the unity for which Christ prayed”.

The conference which ran from 24-28 October, explored the theme: 'Where now for visible unity?' It met at the Logos Papal Center of the Coptic Orthodox Church at Wadi El Natrun, south west of Alexandria.

The focus of the archbishop’s message was the Nicene Creed; it’s origin and the role it plays in all the churches today. All three churches: Roman Catholic, Anglican and Eastern Orthodoxy affirm the Nicene Creed and recite it regularly in their services.

“This year holds a special significance for all Christians. We celebrate 1,700^th anniversary of the Nicene Creed, the confession of our faith that proclaims Jesus Christ as God from God, light from light, true God from true God. And we remember with deep reverence that it was here in Alexandria, in the Egyptian church, that the light of Nicene faith [was] first shown through the courageous witness of St. Athanasius the apostolic,” he said.

It was a brilliant move by the Egyptian archbishop to focus on the creed. There are other issues he could have talked about that have not brought unity, and seem never likely too.

In his address, Archbishop Samy celebrated the importance of the See of Alexandria, which played a key role in the debates that led to the Council of Nicaea. St Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, sought to resolve the Arian controversy and facilitated the reception of the Nicene faith.

It is significant that all three churches celebrate the Nicene Creed including the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox churches who recite the Nicene creed in their services. However, the unity for which Christ called for, still has not brought the long for unity and points of separation remain.

THE TWO NATURES OF CHRIST

The Eastern Orthodox Church believes in Christ's one nature, which is understood as the union of divine and human natures. This belief is rooted in the teachings of the Ecumenical Councils, particularly the Council of Chalcedon, which defined that Jesus has one hypostasis (person) but two natures (divine and human).

The Roman Catholic Church and Anglicans believe in the two natures of Christ, which are both divine and the human. This belief is central to their understanding of the nature of Christ and his role as the mediator between God and humanity.

The Catholic Church, in particular, emphasizes the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union, asserting that Jesus Christ is both fully divine and fully human. This doctrine is formally articulated in the Definition of Chalcedon (451 AD), which emerged from the fourth ecumenical council. According to this definition, Jesus is acknowledged to be in two natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved.

Anglicans, while also recognizing the importance of the two natures of Christ, emphasize the role of faith and scripture in the believer's relationship with God. Anglicans affirm that Jesus Christ is fully divine and fully human, but do not recognize the Pope's authority. They, like their Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters, do not see the Pope as the final authority in the Church.

These are unsurmountable barriers to true unity even after a thousand years of separation.

Between Rome and Canterbury stands the Reformation, and the great doctrine of Justification by Faith which still stands as a road block to unity between the two churches.

The Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England (Canterbury) have different views on the concept of justification. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that justification is a divine act where God declares the sinner to be innocent of his sins, based on the sacrifice of Christ by His shed blood. This is seen as a gift of grace that comes through faith (Romans 3:24; Titus 3:7) and is not earned by works (Romans 3:20, 28; 4:5; Ephesians 2:8-9). The Church of England, on the other hand, holds that justification is not by works but by grace alone through faith in Jesus Christ. They believe that justification by faith alone is a core teaching of the Reformation and that the Catholic Church has not fully understood the biblical text.

INFUSION VS. IMPUTATION: TWO VIEWS OF JUSTIFICATION

Infused righteousness is the basis for the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification as defined by their early church father, Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274).  Aquinas taught:  It is a necessity for man to achieve a level of righteousness by his works (acts) for justification. The righteousness of Christ is not imputed, or fully accounted, to a repentant sinner who is saved by Jesus. The righteousness of man’s acts and the righteousness of Jesus is gradually infused to the believer. 

For the Reformers in the sixteenth century and Evangelical Protestantism in the twentieth century, man's righteousness is not inherent or intrinsic to his being since it was forever lost in the fall of Adam and Eve. The justification offered by Christ, says the Reformed tradition, is a legal declaration. It is an attribution or 'imputation' only.

Imputed righteousness is the basis for justification for Lutherans and those in the Reformed traditions of Christianity.   Theopedia.com, an online encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity, defines “imputed” as used to “designate any action or word or thing as reckoned to a person. Thus, in doctrinal language, the sin of Adam is imputed to all his descendants, i.e., it is reckoned as theirs, and they are dealt with therefore as guilty (Rom 5:12) the righteousness of Christ is imputed to them that believe in Him, or so attributed to them as to be considered their own (2 Cor 5:21). Our sins are imputed to Christ; he undertook to answer the demands of justice for our sins. In all these cases the nature of imputation is the same (Rom 5:12-19; comp. Philemon 1:18, 19).”

The Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that justification is a process maintained through good works and keeping commandments. It involves a change in the believer enabled and perpetuated by participation in the life of Christ, leading towards theosis—Christlikeness. This teaching is maintained despite some Eastern Orthodox scholars' criticisms of the doctrine of justification as found in Protestant Christianity.

The terms homoousios and homoiousios are also significant in Christian theology, particularly regarding the nature of Christ.

Homoousios means “same essence” or “same substance,” indicating that the Son is of the same substance as the Father.

Homoiousios, on the other hand, means “like substance,” suggesting that the Son is of a similar but not identical essence to the Father.

All three churches adhere to homoousios affirming Jesus’s full divinity.

Homoiousios implied a lesser status held by Arians and declared a heresy by the church.

There is no theologian in the Eastern or the Western Church before the outbreak of the Arian Controversy [in the fourth century], who did not in some sense regard the Son as subordinate to the Father.

However, to say that the Son was subordinate to the Father means that the Son's role and authority are not absolute. Instead, the Son submits to the Father's authority and has a specific role that complements the Father's role. This submission is not a result of the Son's inferiority but rather a reflection of their eternal relationship and function within the Trinity. The Son's submission is a model for believers' submission to Christ, as seen in the teachings of the Apostle Paul.

Archbishop Samy's address encouraged those gathered to work for church unity, saying: “In a world where divisions deepen, God calls us to be instruments of reconciliation. We are reminded that true communion begins in repentance and prayer.”

END